Polanco v. Colvin
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:16-cv-09532
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Polanco v. Saul, Judge Wang ordered clarification of an ambiguous fee agreement and allowed Ungaro & Cifuni to respond.
Plaintiff’s counsel Christopher James Bowes and Ungaro & Cifuni, LLP, whose respective entitlement to the fee was unclear from the submitted retainer agreement.
What happened
In Joel Polanco v. Andrew M. Saul, the court considered Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for approval of a contingent-fee agreement.
The court had previously ordered counsel, Christopher James Bowes, to provide the controlling retainer agreement or explain why an agreement with Ungaro & Cifuni still applied to him. Counsel did not submit the required materials.
Judge Ona T. Wang found the agreement’s language unclear about whether Bowes or Ungaro & Cifuni should receive the fee. She ordered Bowes to serve the order on Ungaro & Cifuni, file a supplemental submission by January 23, 2020, and allowed the firm to respond by January 30, 2020.
The detailed version
- Polanco v. Colvin · No. 1:16-cv-09532
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 15, 2020
Background
Plaintiff’s counsel, Christopher James Bowes, filed a motion seeking approval of a contingent-fee agreement. On December 20, 2019, the court ordered Bowes to supplement the motion by providing either the controlling retainer agreement or a declaration explaining why Plaintiff’s agreement with Ungaro & Cifuni, LLP remained applicable to Bowes, who appeared no longer to be with that firm.
Bowes had not filed the required submission by January 15, 2020.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that retainer agreements are contracts and are interpreted under traditional contract-interpretation rules. It found the submitted agreement ambiguous about whether Bowes or Ungaro & Cifuni should receive the fee. Because Bowes had not attempted to clarify the ambiguity, the court required further submissions.
Order
Judge Ona T. Wang ordered Bowes to serve a copy of the order on Ungaro & Cifuni, LLP and submit a supplemental filing by January 23, 2020. The firm could file a response to Plaintiff’s motion by January 30, 2020. The order did not state a final ruling on the fee motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.